andreareina

Apple sues business over pear logo

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53740820

Arguably one of those cases where the capability is awesome, but using the capability is wat.

https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

These look cool. Tried to render github.com/torvalds/linux but it errored out somewhere, might have been too big haha.

... for now. Anytime I download an unsigned binary I need to go through this song and dance of figuring out again what command I need to run to strip the quarantine tag because none of the UIs that are supposed to allow me to trust this binary work.

- it's easily scaled to longer or shorter durations as needed

Parmesan is just French and English for parmigiano, in the EU both names are protected. The generic equivalent would be hard granular/grating cheese.

The decimal library worries about rounding, that's basically free. With floats you need to decide when to use rounding (because you don't want to show a balance of -0.000000086) and it's more difficult to use automatic checks for the same reason.

The full brand name is On Cloud

If you're not yet familiar with it, I present to you the Datasaurus Dozen: https://www.research.autodesk.com/publications/same-stats-di...

If bmi says you're obese, you very likely (~95%) are. The problem is that bmi only catches about half of people who are obese.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69498-7

Do you have a citation for that? I've had thoughts in a similar direction (specifically around the upper/lower intervention points) but have had no luck finding data.

> Are you really going to review these small changes? So far the example I saw from agents are terrible. Full of drive-by, unrelated changes here and there. Mostly harmless or OK changes, but not focused.

What I'm getting from tfa is that the point is to fix exactly this. Changes get packaged into focused changesets that make sense together. I've done this manually when working on a hairy feature, not splitting it into multiple pull requests but rebasing the history into (ideally) atomic commits that make sense sequentially.

Oh ffs you can't even answer yourself and have to delegate to the bullshit machine.

I appreciate the ethos of your app but am uneasy. First, you have given me no reason to trust you with my data—there is not even a mention of data security, for all I know all my data would be hosted on a public firebase instance. Second, you have given me zero reason to trust your advice—you are not a financial planner, the AI is not a financial planner. It is—maybe—sufficient for someone doing this on their own, but once you package it into an app and offer the service you own that relationship and you are responsible. I don't see any mention of that either.

Trust is what's missing, and you've given me no indication that I can trust you.

XP had crapware trial versions but you could disable them and there were never ads on the actual UI.

This is the Active Record pattern, I used to hear about it all the time. Don't know if the zeitgeist has changed or if I'm just around different parts of the internet these days.

One use case: you adopted a (new?) formatter, now tracking the evolution of a line/its vicinity is a lot more difficult past that. So you apply the formatter to every commit since the beginning. Literally it's not the true history of what the code looked like, but semantically it is, and it's more useful.

Amazing! I have the same MAC address on my luggage!

The fundamental physics that underlie everyday life are known. We know that general relativity and the standard model of particle physics aren't fully compatible, but that's only at very short scales or very high gravity, those aren't relevant to everyday life. We're able to model single-particle and even few-particle systems on an astonishing degree of accuracy (1 part in 1e9, I believe down to measurement error). We can't model the 1e25 particles because in the brain to explain consciousness it's an exponential problem but in principle with unlimited time and memory we could turn the crank on the equations.

Except I've not heard of anyone using them, either online or IRL. If I'm holding a wheel my head unit is close to where I'm already looking, and the focus shift is similar to (or less than) going from the wheel in front of me to infinity where HUDs typically put things at.

It's also doctors. Medlife Crisis on YouTube, Barbell Medicine, others. BBM have an article on priorities for overall health and they link to a tool maintained by one of the professional bodies on what routine screens to have done and it's pretty conservative. Even my doctor on seeing an "abnormal" lab result said it was likely spurious given my lack of complaints and all the rest of the results. That said they still recommended a follow-up because they kind of have to given professional ethics. BBM (again) made a similar point: resistance training is known to cause liver-associated enzymes (AST, ALT, etc) to rise, that doesn't mean you can ignore a high value.

The steps to fixing it is to not take the test that takes you from a prior of 1/100000 to a posterior of 1/1000, because you're going to ignore it anyway. And you can't depend on multiple testing because those test results can be correlated.

ETA: I can be convinced that we can collectively get to a place where broader screening would be indicated. But I think it's going to require both of the tests getting better and being better about what we do with (and feel about) the results.

I've received emails to my HME address from third parties. Bought something from Shop A, got the email confirmation from them, later got the shipping notification from Courier B, all to the same HME address.

Not to mention that zooming in will make some listings disappear

Do you remember why 1 bit more?

Didn't the latest outage affect people not on us-east-1 because internal aws services depend on us-east-1?

First enacted 1977 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

What does this offer over the refractometer he already has?

I agree that total work is probably the more relevant metric.

The equivalent in running is pace, at least on flat ground. I don't know that power would really be useful in running, the biomechanics of running hills is sufficiently different that I question the ability to make an equivalence comparison the same way you do in cycling.

AFAIK 5:4 is just the lowest ratio they've tested. Personally I use table sugar (1:1) and can sustain rates above 100g/h. Haven't hit the ceiling yet, don't really feel the need to explore where that is yet because exceeding the absorption rate comes with the risk of diarrhoea which is bad at any time but especially when you're in the middle of a training session and who knows where the nearest toilet is.

Gut training is consuming large amounts of carbohydrate (preferably in the same form you intend to use when racing), yes.